- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 643 Hour
- Reading permission
Seems, at least from some of the responses, that the existing One-Child Policy is still widely misunderstood.|
The existing One-Child Policy is not "universal" in China but is only in relation to members of the Han majority and only to those living in urban centers.
This is one of the main reasons it is not working as it should.
Add in the ability for families to pay extra - to cover the added stress on the infrastructure such as education, housing, resources etc. - eliminates much of the effectiveness. If that allowance were cancelled, that would some way to making it more effective, but it is still not going to solve the main problem...the rural community being allowed any number of children.
Over the first couple of decades of the One-Child Policy, it was slightly more effective, but with the dramatic increase in disposable income of, especially, urban residents, the mistakes of families having more than one child and just covering the extra stress on society by an "advance" payment is making a type of mockery of the idea.
The increase in the population in rural areas is adding to the stress as the children of those rural communities migrate into the urban areas - areas that are increasingly unable to provide housing, employment and security to the new levels required by the influx of migrants.
I agree that legislating a "No-Child" policy wouldn't work, but a social movement does have potential for success.
I don't accept the argument regarding the elderly - that is like saying there is no need to clean the environment because the areas and industries still polluting the environment would suffer if the environment were cleaner.
So, either make the One-Child Policy more standard by removing the "option" of advance payment clause and adding the policy to the rural areas of the country and making it truly effective; or drop it in favor of a one-generation, socially-driven, NO Child Policy.
Adding in the option that adopting a child - legally and only from government adoption centers - is allowed and encouraged, is an excellent way to also give homes to the many children without homes.
Only one generation and the population could be appreciably reduced.
As to the "natural" urge...of course that exists, but just because it exists is not a good enough reason to not try and implement a different policy. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" as Spock said, and in this case, with a social policy making social pariahs out of those with young children, the focus could be more on "the many" and the selfish "one" - or two of course since it takes two - will find that social acceptance and being part of the community is more valuable than their selfishness.
Hey, just a topic for discussion.